[HN Gopher] Roland's 50th Anniversary Concept Piano
___________________________________________________________________
Roland's 50th Anniversary Concept Piano
Author : sampling
Score : 100 points
Date : 2023-01-05 23:47 UTC (23 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (articles.roland.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (articles.roland.com)
| crawsome wrote:
| It's odd there's no audio footage of it happening. Only a 6
| second muted video.
| selectodude wrote:
| Quadcopters sound like an enormous swarm of bees. I doubt the
| sound quality coming out of them is very good.
| w-ll wrote:
| Unless your playing "Flight of the Bumblebee" then it's
| "immersive"
| verdverm wrote:
| The renders look like bladeless airflow, not a quad or
| propeller based system
| tgv wrote:
| It's even a render, I think. Just add 6 seconds of one of
| Rachmaninov's recordings under it
| (https://youtu.be/L3Xp2Djqh3s?t=30), and you'll have a good
| impression.
| [deleted]
| dTal wrote:
| Let's be clear: this is not real. It doesn't "make use of" drone
| speakers because it's fictional. This is someone saying "wouldn't
| it be cool if we had drone speakers" and paying a digital artist
| to knock together some renders. The piano might exist, but those
| drones don't. They aren't even a viable design - broad, flat
| supports and a wide flat gondola right in the air stream? Single
| hub? What stops it from spinning, are we meant to think it has
| counterrotating blades (cuz they are _hella_ noisy even by drone
| standards)? Where _are_ the blades anyway?
|
| Nonsense. Fiction. Not even plausible fiction. Might as well have
| them hover by magic. HN, move on.
| xrd wrote:
| Well, I wish I could see it at CES (as they state it will be)
| to confirm or disprove your assertions.
|
| Can't you just have an extra noise cancelling drone that
| creates an equivalent cancellation sound wave?
|
| Even if it is "fiction," it fits into the "science fiction"
| category and I love it as such. The rendition is such a
| beautiful idea that I'm happy they created the web page to
| showcase the idea.
| henearkr wrote:
| Wouldn't latency be horrible, if e.g. the drones are connected
| through wifi or bluetooth?
|
| My understanding is that that's why until now no serious electric
| piano has ever proposed bluetooth audio connectivity for the
| player.
|
| [Edit]: they use an other tech with zero latency, as described in
| the article. Thanks for the replying comments.
| LeoPanthera wrote:
| You know, before wifi and bluetooth we had this amazing
| technology designed to transmit audio through the air with zero
| latency.
|
| It was called "radio".
| boppo1 wrote:
| Aren't wifi and bluetooth just "radio that sends packets"?
| martyvis wrote:
| Sure, but you can't play begin to play the sound until you
| have enough bits that you can decode what was sampled, and
| that always means you have to wait at least a couple of
| milliseconds. Conventional analog radio allows you to play
| out the modulating waveform with sub millisecond delay.
| balfirevic wrote:
| > Wouldn't latency be horrible, if e.g. the drones are
| connected through wifi or bluetooth?
|
| It would, but they are not - it's in the article.
| brudgers wrote:
| Reverb is the result of latency, and in large spaces the audio
| signal to distant speakers is delayed to minimize dead spots
| due to wave interference.
|
| Which is to say musical experience is complicated and hence
| live sound design is also complex in ways that aren't casually
| obvious.
|
| The rule of thumb is sound travels one foot per millisecond
| (30cm per millisecond). So at 30m, ten milliseconds latency
| wouldn't change the spatial perception very much even without
| correction. Of course 90ms is plenty of time to correct for
| latency if you want to be spot on.
|
| My wild ass guess is a microphone on the drone could be used to
| sync the remote speakers with the piano speakers to phase align
| the sources.
|
| Basically ordinary audio signal processing succumbed to compute
| about twenty years ago.
| kimburgess wrote:
| Haas would like to disagree. If you experience a second
| wavefront within ~2-50ms you'll still localise to the first,
| even if the second is up to 10dB louder.
| brudgers wrote:
| I don't understand. What I wrote does not feel inconsistent
| with the psycho-acoustic idea you mentioned.
| kimburgess wrote:
| I was likely misinterpreting your intent. My response was
| to:
|
| > So at 30m, ten milliseconds latency wouldn't change the
| spatial perception very much even without correction.
| brudgers wrote:
| Unless I misunderstand the psycho-acoustic point of the
| comment, it would seem that we are in agreement about the
| effects of 10ms latency on audio experience.
|
| My intent was that 10ms latency correlates to about 3m.
| The difference between perceiving reflections at
| 33m/110ms and 30m/100ms is unlikely to have a significant
| impact on a live music experience...though it might
| matter in a recording studio or in live performance
| monitoring.
| daniel_reetz wrote:
| The article addresses latency. They used a proprietary system
| repurposed from headphones.
| callalex wrote:
| It is almost certainly using FM as it's cheap and zero latency.
| rkagerer wrote:
| Wait, drones as in bzzzzzzzzzzz?
|
| Like, what are they performing, a cover of Buzzsaw by The
| Turtles?
| georgeoliver wrote:
| I've been thinking about building a planar wave speaker, but now
| the idea of an integrated planar wave speaker music desk sounds
| fun!
| jdalgetty wrote:
| I wonder if you could do some sort of noise cancelling of the
| prop noise?
| LeoPanthera wrote:
| Compose a piece that actually uses the prop noise, and have
| them vary the speed of the motors during the piece in order to
| alter the noise.
| verdverm wrote:
| They don't look to uses props, but bladeless air flow tech,
| based on the renders anyhow
| klyrs wrote:
| Never trust a render.
| shever73 wrote:
| The article states:
|
| > As of now, the drones' propellers are still somewhat noisy.
| But as quiet drone technology becomes available, they'll be
| able to add it to the existing framework.
| lostlogin wrote:
| They have found a completely non-reassuring way of
| dismissing the issue.
| peterkelly wrote:
| Finally, an internet connected piano.
|
| I can't wait until I get prompted to install updates while
| playing, have to pay a subscription fee to use the sustain pedal,
| and have the instrument become non-functional 15 years after
| purchase once the manufacturer finds the service is no longer
| profitable and decommissions its server.
| aae42 wrote:
| i know this is tongue-in-cheek, but roland is not that kind of
| company
| sneak wrote:
| The IAP cloud subscriptions and in-app surveillance spyware
| in the Roland iOS app seem to suggest otherwise:
|
| https://apps.apple.com/us/app/roland-piano-app/id1610462043
| peterkelly wrote:
| Damn, I was joking in my original comment, but yep there it
| is. In-App Purchases Roland Cloud
| Core Year $29.99 Roland Cloud Core Month $2.99
|
| https://www.roland.com/global/categories/roland_cloud/
|
| "Roland Cloud is an evolving cloud-based suite of software
| synthesizers, drum machines, and sampled instruments for
| modern creators."
|
| It's not hard to predict how that's likely to pan out in
| the coming years.
|
| I recently saw a second hand Roland AT-900 organ for sale
| near me (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mfm_AYqI1No). I'm
| tempted. The fact that comes with all it's sound and
| functionality built-in and _doesn 't_ have any internet
| connectivity which can be used to disable said features
| after my subscription expires makes it more compelling.
| thewebcount wrote:
| Yeah, I don't get most of these plug-in companies. They
| require an internet connection to work. I love using
| software synths, but knowing that any time from next week
| to next decade I won't be able to reproduce the sounds
| I'm using to record my songs scares the hell out of me.
| With a hardware synth, I can at least have the ability to
| back up the sounds and buy another instrument if the
| current one dies. I can literally use the same sounds I
| made in the 80s on many different synths (Rolands,
| Yamahas, etc.). That's worth a lot to me.
| pbronez wrote:
| Yeahhh Roland kinda sucks lately. This concept has some
| cool stuff, but in synth land they kinda missed the boat.
| Everyone else is doing this awesome pure analog
| renaissance and Roland is just doing emulation. They're
| not even leading digital - that's Hydrasynth.
| jvm___ wrote:
| Moonlight sonata interrupted by the windows crash sound or a
| message notification beep.
| etrautmann wrote:
| or a drone literally crashing
| tshaddox wrote:
| I'd be more worried about a copyright claim.
| whalesalad wrote:
| uhh, have y'all ever heard a drone hovering? not exactly the kind
| of thing you want anywhere near a musical instrument LOL
| userbinator wrote:
| I can think of a few genres of music where drone sounds would
| not feel out of place. Unfortunately, they're genres of music
| which aren't suited to a piano either.
| kimburgess wrote:
| Namely: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drone_music
| hoherd wrote:
| Seriously. My first thought was playing the piano while waiting
| to be shot by a sniper. Ever since I saw some of the Syrian war
| vids, I just can't disassociate that sound from mortal danger.
| boppo1 wrote:
| How so? Aren't snipers far-off? I would think a buzz noise
| would worry me about explosives. How were drones used in
| Syria?
| hoherd wrote:
| They would use quad-rotor drones as sniper spotters,
| looking for people hiding in the rubble.
| xattt wrote:
| > As of now, the drones' propellers are still somewhat noisy.
| But as quiet drone technology becomes available, they'll be
| able to add it to the existing framework.
| ilyt wrote:
| Yes the law of physics will clearly just decide to bend to
| Roland's whims /s
| Gigachad wrote:
| I don't believe the limitations of physics are anywhere
| near what current drones sound like. They are loud because
| zero effort goes in to making them quiet. It's not so much
| the moving air that makes them loud, its the whining motors
| and bearings that are loud. If you were able to encase
| those motors inside and perhaps put some effort in to
| making the air stream less turbulent, they could be a lot
| quieter.
|
| Although I still can't see drones being good for this even
| with good designs.
| dTal wrote:
| It is certainly not "whining motors and bearings" that
| makes them loud - it is the fact that you are creating
| massive periodic pressure differences with the blades. It
| is the same reason helicopters go thump-thump-thump, but
| scaled up in frequency. Have you _ever_ heard a quiet
| propeller? About the best you can do is increase the size
| and decrease the speed (more efficient = less power
| dumped into the air), add more blades (minimizes
| circumferential pressure variation), and add a duct
| (eliminates tip vortices). But eventually you hit weight
| limits on all of that. At drone sizes, unless the drone
| is impossibly feather-light, you 're always going to have
| some sort of whine.
|
| Even in the absolute theoretical best case scenario of an
| idealized disk-shaped actuator inside a duct with proper
| lip shaping and 0 turbulence around the actuator, the
| shear boundary of the high velocity output plume is
| unavoidably going to cause turbulence. The best you can
| do is "woosh".
| [deleted]
| blub wrote:
| The Piano seems to be Android-powered and is connected to the
| internet. Wouldn't use this even if Roland paid me to.
|
| It's startling how much things have changed from when I first
| started using computers, when it seemed that nearly anything
| could be improved through electronics. Nowadays adding a computer
| means malware, spyware and losing support after two years.
| lostlogin wrote:
| For a small monthly payment you can gave access to g.
| jameshart wrote:
| That is not what 'drone' means in a musical instrument context.
|
| Unless the function of these drones is to emit a constant
| underlying tone to add to the musicality, allowing you to mimic
| bagpipes, a banjo or a tambura. Which has clearly always been the
| ambition of any serious pianist.
| hibbelig wrote:
| > That is not what 'drone' means in a musical instrument
| context.
|
| Which other word should they have used?
| erichmond wrote:
| I know I'm reiterating what others have said, but a STRONG +1 to
| the folks who are advocating for a Yamaha P-515. I bought one a
| year or two ago, and it sounds amazing, has great feel, is
| sturdy, but light enough to move.
|
| Get the hardware as others are saying.
| mouse_ wrote:
| [flagged]
| cheeselip420 wrote:
| What a lousy comment.
| klyrs wrote:
| Truly, lice have better taste than whoever came up with this
| utkugenc wrote:
| It's PR and it's obviously serving its purpose :)
| dragonsky wrote:
| >>> As of now, the drones' propellers are still somewhat noisy.
| But as quiet drone technology becomes available, they'll be able
| to add it to the existing framework.
|
| So really everything you would expect from hanging a speaker from
| a drone, noisy and power hungry.
| [deleted]
| brudgers wrote:
| Mic up the prop, phase shift 180 degrees and cancel the prop
| noise...kinda like noise canceling headphones?
| dTal wrote:
| If you cancel the noise for one listening spot, you double it
| for another listening spot. Conservation of energy!
| brudgers wrote:
| Unlike Newtonian theory, in audio engineering all points in
| space are not equivalent. Some points are between a pair of
| ears, some are not.
|
| A common audio engineering strategy these days is to direct
| phase shift effects of multiple point sources vertically,
| e.g. linear speaker arrays. For audience members,
| reinforced and canceled frequencies fifteen feet off the
| ground don't effect musical experience.
| [deleted]
| jojobas wrote:
| My immediate thoughts. If only pianos were typically positioned
| in the same spot for a long time, allowing to do those
| measurements once and hang the speakers appropriately from the
| ceiling. Or make a speaker array in the base and do all sorts
| of spacial Fourier/phased array madness.
|
| I guess if you want a gimmick piano you can have it.
| jdlshore wrote:
| It's a concept piece. Gimmicks (or, more charitably,
| exploring out-there ideas) are the whole point.
| kbos87 wrote:
| DJI has made a shocking amount of progress at making its drones
| quieter over the past few years. What used to sound like a loud
| swarm of bees 20 feet overhead is now almost imperceptible.
| xattt wrote:
| The volume of air moved remains a limitation of physics.
|
| One thing the news release didn't cover was whether there
| were attempts to integrate sound production into the coils of
| the motors.
| skykooler wrote:
| It's not just the volume of air but also the speed that
| it's moved at. Large slow propellers are quieter and more
| efficient than small fast propellers. (But less
| maneuverable.) In the limit, I could see this being done by
| big, spidery drones with huge props relative to their
| weight, like a scale model of
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AeroVelo_Atlas.
| klyrs wrote:
| Even better with servo-controlled booms so the speakers
| are stationary when in use...
| jojobas wrote:
| Maybe a prop-stabilized blimp. You can hear flies and moths,
| no way a presumably 100+g speaker and a battery could be
| silent.
| tshaddox wrote:
| Over the last several weeks I have been deep in research for a
| new digital piano, spending a lot of time looking at Roland,
| Kawai, and Yamaha models, and seeing this made me giggle. I doubt
| I would ever buy even one of the less traditional-looking
| production models (like the Kiyola), but I am glad they have fun
| with creating wild concepts like this.
| bob1029 wrote:
| Same.
|
| I'm about to just buy that P515... I can't stand the indecision
| any longer.
| Nifty3929 wrote:
| I can vouch for the 515. I got one last year and I love it.
| Make sure you get the proper furniture stand for it. L515 I
| think.
| bob1029 wrote:
| I just went for it... Sweetwater had the whole triforce in
| stock.
|
| Got the P515 + L515 + LP1.
| Nifty3929 wrote:
| That's exactly what I bought. Almost from Sweetwater as
| well, though I ended up buying from a local dealer
| instead.
| kzrdude wrote:
| Have fun with the new piano :)
| austinprete wrote:
| Did the same search about a year ago, ended up ordering the
| CLP-775 after testing Kawai and Yamaha in stores. It _finally_
| arrived last month, completely love it so far. On the somewhat
| cheaper side the 745 also felt great in store.
|
| I don't think you can go wrong with the equivalent Kawai models
| either. They somehow didn't quite do it for me when I played
| them in store (compared to the CLPs), but couldn't quite pin
| down what it was, and it was probably just a personal thing.
|
| Anyway, definitely second FlyingRobot's recommendation about
| Piano World (though seems like you're set on that) and trying
| before settling on anything.
|
| Good luck, sure you'll end up with something you love!
| hibbelig wrote:
| It's really interesting. I tried Kawai and Yamaha digital
| pianos in the store and I didn't like the key action of the
| Kawai at all, nor the sound. Now my piano teacher has an
| "actual" (non-digital) Kawai grand and it feels just like the
| digital one -- not my favorite.
| bzzzt wrote:
| The CLP line is from Yamaha ;) Just to give a +1 to the
| CLP-775, I also chose that one and it's a joy to play. While
| the CLP display looks a bit more 'dated' than the Kawai
| models it starts up a lot faster and response is instantly.
| The Kawai models I tried have some low-end mobile chip which
| needed some time to boot and touch screen response was slow.
| kzrdude wrote:
| The display difference you highlight is actually one of the
| reasons I preferred CLP 745 over Kawai options. So I went
| with the Yamaha.
| illumin8 wrote:
| Kawai makes quite nice digital pianos. The CA95 that we bought
| about 5 years ago has real wooden hammer action and a wooden
| soundboard. It also reproduces the harmonics (through digital
| samples) that you get when you hold the sustain pedal down and
| play a different string (resonant frequencies can vibrate other
| strings that you haven't played).
|
| I highly recommend them if you are considering a digital piano.
| tshaddox wrote:
| I wonder if that's the predecessor to the CA99. I played that
| in a showroom and the Grand Feel III action is fantastic. I'm
| just not sure if I want to pay like 2-3x over what a portable
| digital piano would cost.
| illumin8 wrote:
| It is. The CA95 just has Grand Feel II action. I agree,
| it's one of the best digital pianos I've tried.
| kibibyte wrote:
| You can get this feature at their lowest end model of that
| series (CA49), though it may lack some other aspects of the
| resonance modeling that they reserve for higher end models. I
| believe almost all digitals starting at $2000 across the
| board have this feature, and the limiting factor that'll hold
| you back from hearing it all at the lower end of the price
| range is the audio setup that comes with the keyboard.
|
| I remember discovering this feature when I held down all keys
| from A0 through E1 (without sounding them), depressed the
| sostenuto pedal, and then played a bunch of other keys.
| illumin8 wrote:
| That's the term I was looking for: resonance modeling. When
| you hear it in action you realize why most digital pianos
| sound so terrible. A quality digital or virtual piano
| models all the resonant frequencies and is a joy to listen
| to.
| FlyingRobot wrote:
| Looked at those exact brands about a month ago. Went with the
| Yamaha N1x hybrid. (Which means it has a conventional acoustic
| action with hammers and everything) so far pretty happy with
| it. I suggest going over to the piano world forums and doing a
| dive. The threads on these models are long. Also above all go
| see them in real life if you can.
| tshaddox wrote:
| Wow, I hope you're having a blast with that piano, I'm
| jealous! I have been intensely lurking on the Piano World for
| a while now. :)
| jonahbenton wrote:
| Got the kids a $2k Roland FP 90x for Christmas to replace a $1k
| Casio. I don't play but they liked the Roland action when we
| tried their models in stores over Yamaha, Casio, and some
| others. Now that we have it- incredible instrument, well worth
| the upgrade, good match for their skills. It is a really,
| really good sound producer, better than most analog pianos I've
| heard, though I can easily tell the difference between it and
| their teacher's Steinway grand. The sounds emitted by the
| Roland are very fine, but still digital. It feels like a $10k
| digital would get much closer to being able to trick a listener
| into thinking it was a fine analog.
| tshaddox wrote:
| The FP-90x is currently at the top of my list. The price and
| portability makes it much more practical for me than the
| bigger console pianos, even though I am very allured by some
| of the nicer actions with longer keysticks. I've played the
| RD-2000 enough to know I'll enjoy the action, but I haven't
| been able to find an FP-90x in a showroom yet to hear it in
| person. The piano sound samples I've listened to aren't super
| impressive, but I'm not super concerned about that.
|
| One of the things I plan to do is connect my iPad and laptop
| and play around with all the newer piano VSTs that I've
| missed since being away from that world for about 10 years.
| Sadly Kawai pianos don't work as USB audio interfaces, so you
| can't pipe the VST output back into its onboard speakers. The
| Roland pianos all support this feature, as do I believe most
| or all Yamahas.
| rjh29 wrote:
| It's a matter of taste I guess. I had a Yamaha and switched
| to Roland and much prefer the chunkier key action and the
| slightly brighter/compressed piano tone. Definitely important
| to try it in store.
|
| My absolute favourite is the Nord Grand, but it's a little
| too expensive.
| tshaddox wrote:
| I believe the Nord Grand uses Kawai's Responsive Hammer III
| action, which is also on the much cheaper (and excellent!)
| Kawai ES920 portable digital piano.
| alfiedotwtf wrote:
| Yep - https://forum.pianoworld.com/ubbthreads.php/topics/
| 2986123/n...
|
| You could go Kawai VPC-1 which is just the controller,
| and then connect it via MIDI to whatever you like. That
| way, you get a wooden action without paying for the sound
| engine (I've got my VCP-1 connected to a CP Reface):
|
| https://kawaius.com/technology/wooden-key-actions/
| rjh29 wrote:
| The Reface CP is amazing isn't it!
|
| I looked up the VPC-1 and while I probably would pay a
| bit more just to have speakers and a sound engine - the
| weight difference is interesting. It's 29.5kg for the
| VPC-1 vs. 17.0kg for the ES920!
| jonahbenton wrote:
| Ooo, yeah, I saw one of those, didn't get to listen to it.
| It does seem like it would totally be about taste and
| preference.
|
| Was really pleasurable, also wistful, taking my son to try
| them out. We could just hang out in this large room in a
| retail store in the middle of NYC for a few hours, he just
| playing whatever was there. Sometimes other kids would drop
| in too. That kind of relaxed vibe now incredibly rare.
|
| And though I can hear and feel the music, I can't make it,
| never learned. Don't have time and space to do it now.
| Really glad he is getting it into his brain at a young age.
| FlyingRobot wrote:
| To me even the very highest end digital pianos still sound
| digital, but they are close enough and the benefits of
| digital outweigh what you might sacrifice in sound for most
| people.
|
| I've noticed there is also fierce debate between digital
| pianos that are based on sampled sounds versus modeled. I
| believe most Roland digitals are modeled with Fourier series,
| while all/most of their competitors are sampled (not sure
| about Nord). That said Pianoteq is a popular after market VST
| that will bring a very convincing top tier modeled sound to
| even a low end digital piano.
| tshaddox wrote:
| I'm not extremely concerned with sound quality, both
| because I intend to play around with lots of VSTs and
| because I'll be upgrading from a Roland RD-700SX which has
| served me incredibly well but which is very outdated when
| it comes to the sound engine!
| FlyingRobot wrote:
| Sounds like a good approach to me. Buy for the best
| action your budget will allow. With VSTs you can tailor
| the sound to your liking. I don't have a stake in
| Pianoteq, but if you aren't aware they claim that version
| 8 is going to be brought to iOS soon.
|
| If you use a decent quality open back headphone, I feel
| like this is even more true, because the onboard sound
| becomes irrelevant.
| tshaddox wrote:
| I used Pianoteq on PC many years ago, and I just heard
| that they're possibly coming to iOS soon. I'm looking
| forward to it.
| adrusi wrote:
| For anyone price-sensitive, I highly recommend getting the
| cheapest 88-key hammer-action keyboard you can find and
| hooking it up to Pianoteq Stage rather than buying a
| dedicated digital piano.
|
| Exception if you're going to travel with it. Built-in
| sounds save you on setup time.
| nkozyra wrote:
| A good percentage of the producer digital pianos are just the
| flat keyboard and controls housed in a structure meant to look
| like a traditional piano.
|
| The new Casio, for example, looks relatively modern and fits
| like furniture, but you could remove the body and put it into
| any crazy design you like.
|
| https://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/PXS7000BK--casio-px-...
| layer8 wrote:
| The higher-end Kawai models have an Android-driven touch
| screen. It would be great if someone would manage to jailbreak
| those.
| bzzzt wrote:
| It would be greater if they could make one that didn't need a
| minute to boot up...
| illumin8 wrote:
| I sort of prefer the ones without. The Kawai CA95 doesn't
| have it, but it does have a line input and USB/5 pin MIDI
| in/out, so you can simply place a tablet (iPad or Android) on
| the music stand and use a USB cable to play whatever digital
| synths or piano emulators you want to download.
|
| Not having a built-in tablet means it is future proof and can
| work with the latest tablet, even a decade into the future.
| InCityDreams wrote:
| >means it is future proof and can work with the latest
| tablet, even a decade into the future.
|
| My preferred digital workstation (cubase) works (started
| with an atari version) great - also on my phone. My son has
| the same phone - does not work (slightly different
| processor? Different size sd card?). I can't find the forum
| message where someone went out and got a new tablet for the
| program..doesn't work. "Future proof", isn't even today
| proof.
| danielnoiz wrote:
| I get that this is a concept, but why not use lighter-than-air
| drones? Either hot air (I'd see about an electric heater, no idea
| how feasible that is), or little helium blimps. Then just little
| fans to keep them in place, which could be quieter.
|
| I think I mostly want to see little blimp/airship swarms be a
| thing that I could buy, given a lottery win or two.
| BuildTheRobots wrote:
| The drones seem entirely impractical, but also in keeping for a
| 21st century concept piece.
|
| Also in keeping, and something I truly despise, is the ubiquitous
| and obtrusive thick-bezzeled touchscreen just slapped in the
| middle. I don't think it looks good in the render and looks even
| worse in the photo.
|
| Instead of spending money developing ways to introduce noise into
| the speakers, I'd have rather seen the screen match the curve of
| the panel; though I'm not sure if shaped screens are even
| possible yet. At the very least they could have done a nicer job
| of blending the screen in for this art piece.
| GenerocUsername wrote:
| You can shape a screen by hiding or removing elements of a
| square screen and solve the rest in software which confirms to
| the visible shape.
|
| Square screen in this is as lazy as the rest of it.
| anigbrowl wrote:
| This is a fine example of why Roland isn't really relevant in the
| electronic music gear market any more. They have a great legacy
| and great marketing department, but I can't remember the last
| time they released a product that really excited people.
| pdntspa wrote:
| I've always thought of them as a maker of reliable workhorse
| stuff. The MIDI keyboard I have from them has been rock solid
| and it's outlasted at least two others.
| anigbrowl wrote:
| My point isn't a dig at their quality (which is excellent)
| but at their lack of technological innovation for the last
| ~20 years. Their products are very good, they're just
| extremely risk averse and resting on a reputation they earned
| in the 1980s.
| pdntspa wrote:
| Ok, but _why_ do they need to be exciting and innovative? I
| would almost rather they didn 't, lest the company pivot
| into something of the sort and eventually abandon their
| existing product line.
|
| Besides, a lot of "innovation" in the music space seems to
| be about how many different ways we can bolt on cloud
| functionality
| anigbrowl wrote:
| Roland _says_ that they 're exciting and innovate in
| their marketing materials, but most of their potential
| buyers don't find them to be so in recent years.
|
| This PR exercise is not about how Roland is sticking to
| its proud tradition of timeless, handmade craftsmanship,
| but about how they are so cool and pushing the
| technological envelope. The market reaction might be
| summed up as 'amused skepticism' eg
| https://www.synthtopia.com/content/2023/01/06/roland-
| creates...
| valdiorn wrote:
| They're releasing plenty of products that excited people, it's
| just that the Roland products that are exciting all came out
| 20-40 years ago, and they just keep re-issuing them in various
| formats.
|
| Personally I'd buy the crap out of a Jp8080 Boutique :)
|
| They haven't invented anything new AND exciting for a good
| decade, though.
| steponlego wrote:
| Can somebody give me a quick rundown on the Roland boutique
| modules? I'm shopping for an 808 and I'm not sure if I want to go
| with Roland's solution or the Behringer.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-01-06 23:02 UTC)